ArticleScientific reports2016
Two different mechanisms for the detection of stimulus omission.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consensus Paper: Models of Cerebellar Functions.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Review
- Comparison of Signals from Cerebellar Purkinje Cells and Deep Nuclei during Temporal Prediction in Primates.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Temporal Information Processing in the Cerebellum and Basal Ganglia.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Review
- Sensory and motor representations of internalized rhythms in the cerebellum and basal ganglia.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Consensus Paper: Experimental Neurostimulation of the Cerebellum.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2019Review
- Entrained neuronal activity to periodic visual stimuli in the primate striatum compared with the cerebellum.eLife · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although we can detect slight changes in musical rhythm, the underlying neural mechanism remains elusive. Here we show that two distinct mechanisms are automatically selected depending on the speed of the rhythm. When human subjects detected a single omission of isochronous repetitive auditory stimuli, reaction time strongly depended on the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) for shorter SOAs (<250 ms), but was almost constant for longer SOAs. For shorter SOAs, subjects were unable to detect stimulus omission when either monaural stimuli or those in different frequencies were randomly presented. In contrast, for longer SOAs, reaction time increased when different tempos were presented simultaneously to different ears. These results suggest that depending on the speed of rhythms, the brain may use either temporal grouping of discrete sounds or temporal prediction of upcoming stimuli to detect the absence of a regular stimulus. Because we also found a similar relationship between reaction time and SOA for both visual and tactile stimuli, dual detection strategies could be generalized to other sensory modalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.